I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - CT - 0 1 0 6 1 - S CT GARY AL LEN GLI

DDEN
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 18/ 2008 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. ROGER T
. CLARK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HARRI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT F I RS T J UDI CI AL DI S TRI CT A TTO RN EY FO R A PPELL A N T: O FFI CE O F I N D I G EN T A PPEA LS BY : LESL I E S. LEE AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : DE I RD RE M CC RO RY D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y : C O N O A
. C A R A N N A , II NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 06/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. G ary A l l en G l i dd en w as con vict ed of on e co un to f possessi on of a contr ol l ed
su b sta n c e a s d e fin e d b y M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 4 1 -2 9 -1 3 9 (c ) (R e v . 2 0 0 9 ). T h e C irc u it C our tf orthe F i rs tJud i ci al D i s tr i ctof H arr i s on C ounty, J udge R ogerT . C l ark pr es i di ng,
s ent ence d G l i dden t o serve a t erm of f ouryear s i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m ent of C orr ect i ons . J udge C l ark al s o s ent ence d G l i dden t o s erve hi s i m pr i s onm enta s an habi tual

### 2

of f enderundert he pr ovi s i ons of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 81 ( R ev. 2007)
. A f t ert he tr i al cour tent er ed an or der denyi ng G l i dden’ s m ot i on f ora j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the
v e r d i c t , o ri n th e a l t e r n a t i v e , f o ra n e w tr i a l , Gl i d d e n p e r f e c t e d h i s a p p e a l t o u s , a n d we
a ss ig n e d th is c a se to th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls. A fte r c o n sid e ra tio n , the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
a ff ir m e d th e tr ia l- c o u rt ju d g m e n t. G lidde n v . S ta te , 2 0 1 0 W L 3 6 3 8 7 6 8 (M iss . C t. A p p . S e p t. 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 ). W e g ra n te d G lid d e n ’s p e titio n fo r w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri
. G lidde n v. S ta te , 58 So. 3d 693 ( M i s s . 2011)
. Fi ndi ng t hatno r ever s i bl e err oroccurr ed attr i al , w e af f i r m the j udgm ent of the C our tof

A ppeal s , w hi ch af

f i r m ed the j udgm entof

convi ct i on and s ent ence of t he C i r cui tC our tf

orthe Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H arr i s on C ounty. F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. W e s etouthe r e the f act s r el evantt o t oday’ s di s cus s i on. Som e of the f act s ar e gl eane d fr o m th e o p in io n o f t h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
. G lidden , 2 0 1 0 W L 3 6 3 8 7 6 8 , * 1 , ¶ ¶ 2 -3
. W e w ill i ncl ude addi t i onal f

act s f ound i n t he r ecor d as w arr ant ed by ourdi s cus s i on. ¶ 3
. On S e p t e mb e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 , Ga ry Gl i d d e n wa s i n s t a l l i n g a n a i r c o n d i t i o n e r i n th e h o me of J os eph B uckner
. W hi l e he w as w or ki ng, G l i dden r ece i ved an emer gency s ervi ce c al l f r om
a cus t om erl ocat ed a f

ew bl ocks aw ay. G l i dden had no tr ans por t at i on, and B uckneral l ow ed G lid d e n to b o rro w h is p ick u p tru c k to re sp o n d to th e se rv ice c a ll. ¶ 4
. T h e ro u te G lid d e n tra v e led o n h is re tu rn to B u c k n e r’s h o u se c a u se d h im to c o m e in
co n tact w ith S erg ea n t G reg G o o d m an an d D etec ti v e S teve C o m p ston , b o th o f th e G u lf p o rt Pol i ce D epart m ent , w ho w er e conduct i ng tr af f i c s t ops i n the C i ty of

G ul f por t . Ser geant G oodm an not i ced a truck turni ng w i thoutusi ng a t urn si gnal
. D et ect i ve C om ps t on pul l ed the t ruck o vert o the s i de of the r oad. A s the pol i cemen exi t ed thei rcar , the dr i verof the truck

### 3

( l at eri dent i f

i ed as G l i dden) exi t ed the truck and w al ked t o the r earof the truck. Ser geant G oodm an w al ked t o t he pas s enger - s i de doorand pee r ed i n the w i ndow t o check f orany ot her occupa nt . Ser geantG oodm an i m m edi at el y s aw a l ar ge, c l ear , pl as t i c bag on the dr i ver ' s - s i de f l oorboar d cont ai ni ng w hatSer geantG oodm an bel i eved w as mar i huana. Ser geantG oodm an tes tified th a t “ n o t e v e n a n in c h ” o f th e b a g w a s u n d e r th e d riv e r' s s e a t, an d th e b a g w a s in pl ai n vi ew . D et ect i ve C om ps t on arr es t ed G l i dden. B oth Ser geantG oodm an and D et ect i ve C om ps t on t est i f

i ed thatthey nei therm oved nort ouched the pl as t i c bag unt i l af t eri tw as phot ogr aphed. T he bag w as t es t ed att he l ocal cr i m e l abor at ory. A f or ens i c ana l ys tf

r om t he M i s s i s s i p p i Cr i me L a b o r a t o r y t e s t i f i e d th a tth e b a g c o n t a i n e d 4 5 0 g r a ms o f ma r i h u a n a . No otherdrug par aphernal i a w as f ound on G l i dden ori n the truck. I n hi s t es t i m ony, C om ps t on
c o n firm e d th a t h e h a d c a lled in th e tag n u m b e r o f th e tru c k a n d th a t i t w a s re g iste re d to Jo sep h B u ck n er. ¶5. A ttr i a l , G l i dden t es t i f i ed thathe had borr ow ed B uckner ' s truck, thathe had pos s es s i on
o f th e truc k for o n ly thirty m inu tes, an d that the b ag o f m arihu an a w as n o t on the fl o o rbo ard
w hi l e he w as dr i vi ng. H e s t at ed that , had the bag of m ar i huana been u nd er hi s f eet , he p h y sic a lly w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n a b le to d riv e . A c c o rd in g to G lid d e n , h e k n e w B u c k n e r o n ly
as hi s cus t om erf

r om the ai r- condi t i oni ng bus i nes s and w oul d neverhave gott en i nt o the truck i f he had kn ow n drugs w er e i n the vehi cl e. T hr oughouthi s t es t i m ony, G l i dden
m ai ntai ned that he w as com plet el y u naw are that drug s w ere i n the pickup an d that they m ust have be en hi dden underthe s eatand musthave s l i d outw hen he appl i ed the br akes upon being st op ped by the p oli ce off i cers .

### Of c ours e, whe n the jur y c omm enc ed i tsdel ibe rati ons, theme mbe rs of the j ury ha d 1 

### the ir re ca llof the t es timony, theexhibit s of fe re d and re ce ive d int o evi denc e ( inc luding the photographs of the ba g of m arihuana a s f ound on thedri ver ’s si de f loor board of the truc k, ac cording t o the te stim ony of the poli ceoffi ce rs who conduc te d the s top of Gli dden on the day in ques ti on), and the writte n jur y ins tr uctions give n by thetria l j udge. 4 ¶6. A f

t erthe pr es ent at i on of

al l the evi dence , the r eadi ng of the i ns truct i ons t o the j ur y,
a n d c o u n se l’s c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts, th e ju ry re tired to d e lib e ra te, re tu rn in g in d u e c o u rse w ith 1 its v e rd ict o f g u ilty a s c h a rg e d
. Ju d g e C lar k en ter e d a ju d g m e n t co n sis ten t w ith th e v e rd ict. A ta s ubs equents ent enci ng hear i ng, Judge C l ark s ent ence d G l i dden t o s erve a t erm of f our year s i m pr i s onm enti n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof Corr ect i ons a s a habi tual of f enderunderM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 81 ( R ev. 2007)
. U pon G l i dden’ s f i l i ng of the cus t om ary pos t - tr i al m ot i ons , J udge C l ark enter ed an or derdenyi ng thes e pos t - tr i al
m o ti o n s, an d G li d d en p erfec ted h is ap p ea l. T h is C o u rtassig n ed G li d d en ’s ca se to the C o u rt of A pp eal s. PROCEEDI NG S I N THE C OU RT OF APPE ALS ¶7. B ef

or e the C our tof

A ppeal s , G l i dden r ai s ed the f ol l ow i ng thr e e i s s ue s , w hi ch w e have
r es t at ed f

orthe s ake of

t oday’ s di s cussi on: W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed ( 1) i n denyi ng t he
m ot i on f ora j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ctdue t o the i ns uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence t o sup po rtthe con vict i on , ( 2) i n d eny i ng his proff ered ci rcum st anti al -evi den ce i nst ruct i on s, and ( 3) i n excl udi ng evi dence conce rni ng a pendi ng drug i ndi ctm entagai ns tthe ow nerof t he tru c k G lid d e n w a s d riv in g o n th e d a y o f h is a rre st, th u s d e p riv in g G lid d e n o f th e o p p o rtu n ity to p re s e n t o n e o f h is d e fe n s e s to th e in d ic tm e n t. G lidden , 2010 W L 3638768, at**1- 3, ¶¶4- 9.

### 5

¶ 8
. A un a ni mous Courto f Appe a l s f

ou nd n o mer i ti n G l i dd e n’ s a r gu m ent s . A f t er t he C our tof A ppeal s deni ed G l i dden’ s m ot i on f orr ehea r i ng, G l i dden f

i l ed a pet i t i on f

orw r i tof
cert i or ar i , as ki ng us t o cons i derthe s ame t hr ee i s s ues w hi ch had be en cons i der ed by the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls . W e g ra n te d c e rt io ra ri
. G lidde n v. S ta te , 5 8 S o . 3 d 6 9 3 (M iss. 2 0 1 1 ). DI S CU S S I ON ¶9. In grant i ng cert i orar i , w e hav e the authori ty t o “l i m i t the qu est i on on revi ew . ” M i ss. R . A p p . P . 1 7 (h ). B ro w n v . S ta te , 39 So. 3d 890, 895 ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng B ro w n v. S ta te , 9 8 6 S o . 2 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 2 n .1 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ); D o ra v. S ta te , 9 8 6 S o . 2 d 9 1 7 , 9 2 1 n . 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 )). A s w ill b e n o ted , b a se d o n a n e v e n ly d iv id e d C o u rt in to d a y ’s c a se , o u r m a in c o n c e rn in g ra n tin g c e rtio ra ri w a s w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial w a s le g a lly su ffic ien t to
s uppor tthe ver di ctf

i ndi ng G l i dden gui l ty of the cr i m e of

pos s es s i on of

a contr ol l ed
s ubs t ance . A pl ur al i ty of thi s C our tfi nds t he evi dence w as l egal l y s uf f i ci entt o s uppor tt he
v e rd ict. ¶ 1 0
. B e fo re p ro c e e d in g w ith o u r d isc u ss io n o n th e m a in is s u e b e fo re u s, w e n o te b rie fly that, as t o G l i dd en’s rem ai ning i ssues, w e fi nd the C ou rtof A pp eal s very ably di scussed t hese i s s u e s , c o rr e c t l y a p p l y i n g th e l a w t o th e f a c t s a s r e v e a l e d i n th e r e c o r d
. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we adoptthe C our tof

A ppeal s ’ anal ys es on I s s ues I I and I I I , and w e f i nd thes e i s s ues t o be
w ith o u t m e ri t. G lidden , 2010 W L 3638768, at**2- 3, ¶¶ 6- 9. W H E T H E R T H E T R IA L C O U R T E R R E D IN D E N Y IN G G L ID D E N ’S M OTI ON F OR J UDGM ENT NOT W I THS TA NDI NG THE VE RDI CT DUE TO THE LEGA L I NSUF FI CI ENCY O F THE EVI DENCE. ¶ 1 1
. T hus , the i s s ue w e now di s cus s i s w hether , i n thi s cons truct i ve- pos s es s i on drug cas e, the evi dence w as l egal l y s uf f i ci entt o s uppor tthe ver di ct . T he di s s entco ncludes thatt he

### One pound c ontains 454 gram s. This largebag c ontaine d an amount of m arihuana 2 

### just fo ur g rams shyof o ne p ound
. 6 evi dence s how ed onl y thatG l i dden w as i n the vi ci ni ty of the near l y one pound of m ar i huana 2 i n the pi ck- up truck he w as dr i vi ng, and nothi ng el s e. I n otherw or ds , the di s s entopi nes t hat th e re w a s “ n o in d e p e n d e n t in c rim in a tin g e v id e n c e ” to e sta b lish th a t G lid d e n c o n stru c tiv e ly pos s es s ed the l arge, cl ear , pl as t i c bag c ont ai ni ng near l y one pound of m ar i huana f

ound on th e fl o o rb o a rd , a lm o s t c o m p le te ly e x p o s e d d ir e c tly u n d e r th e d ri v e r’ s se a t o f th e tru c k . W e
r es pect f ul l y di s agr ee. ¶12. I n t oday’ s cas e, the St at e w as bur dened w i th pr ovi ng beyond a r eas onabl e doubtt hat G l i dden know i ngl y, w i l l f ul l y, unl aw f

ul l y, and fe l oni ous l y pos s es s ed the s ubj ectm ar i huana. W hen, as her e, a def

endantdoes notphys i cal l y pos s es s the i l l egal drugs , the St at e mustpr ove
cons truct i ve pos s es s i on of the drugs i n or dert o pr evai l
. W e r ece nt l y s t at ed: T o sup po rta co nv i ct i on for po sses si on o f a co ntr oll ed subst ance, “there m ust be s uf f i ci entf act s t o w arr anta f

i ndi ng that[ the] d efe ndantw as aw ar e of the pr es ence and cha r act erof the part i cul ars ubs t ance and w as i ntent i onal l y and c o n s c io u s ly in p o s s e s s io n o f i t.” W a ll v. S ta te , 718 So
. 2d 11 07 , 111 1 (M i ss. 1998) ( quot i ng C u rr

y v. S ta te , 2 4 9 S o . 2 d 4 1 4 , 4 1 6 (M iss. 1 9 7 1 )). Mc Clella n v. S ta te , 3 4 S o . 3 d 5 4 8 , 5 5 3 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 ). ¶13. J ur i es a r e notr equi r ed t o vi ew thes e cas es i n a va cuum. T he j ur or s a r e notr equi r ed t o hang thei rcomm on s ens e on the coa t - r ack a s they ent erthe courtr oom f orj ury s ervi ce. A s i s do n e o n m u lt iple oc ca sion s da il y in the tr ial co u rt s o f ou r st ate, Jud g e C lark in to d ay ’s
ca se a p p rop ri ately ins tru cted the ju ry o n it s so lem n resp o n sibil it ies i n the c ase o f State of Mis s is s i ppiv. G ar

y A l len G lidden
. H er e ar e buta f ew exampl es of

J udge C l ark’ s i ns truct i ons t o the j ury:

### SeeMississip pi C od e Sectio n 4 1-2 9-1 39 (c)(2)(D ) (Rev . 20 09 ). Timo thyGro ss, a 3 

### for ens ic sc ie nti st

with theMississippi Crim e La borator y (Gul fport Re giona l La

borator y), te stif ie d that t he substan cein t

he e vide ncebag pr es ent ed t o him for te sting (whic h was shown by indepe ndent

evi denc e t o be the ba g re cove re d from t he truc k Gli dden wa s driving) was infact marihu ana, w eigh ing 45 0.0 grams. Def ens e c ounse l ha d no obje ction t o thi s instruc ti on. 4 

### 7 A s s ol e j udges of

the f act s i n thi s cas e, yourexcl us i ve pr ovi nce i s t o det erm i ne w hatw ei ghtand w hatc r e di bi l i ty wi l l be as s i gned the t es t i m ony and s uppor t i ng e v id e n c e o f e a c h w itn e s s in th is c a s e . Y ou are requ i red an d exp ect ed to use your good com m on s ens e and s ound hones tj udgm ent i n cons i der i ng and w ei ghi ng the t es t i m ony of

each wi tnes s w ho has t es t i f i ed i n this cas e. T he evi dence w hi ch you ar e t o cons i dercons i s t s of the t es t i m ony and s t at ement s of

the w i tnes s es and the ex hi bi t s of f er ed and r ece i ved
. Y

ou a re al so per m i t t ed to dr aw s uch r easonabl e i nf er ence s f

r om the ev i dence as s eem ju s tifie d in th e lig h t o

f y o u ro w n ex

p e r ie n c e . ( J ury I ns truct i on C
- 1) ( emphasi s added)
. T he j ury al s o w as i ns truct ed thatthe bur den w as on th e S ta te t o p r o v e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t, in tera lia , G l i dden “di d know i ngl y,
w i l f ul l y, unl aw f

ul l y and f

el oni ous l y pos s es s 250 gr ams ormore butl es s than 500 gr ams of M ar i j uana. ” ( J ury I ns truct i on S- 1B
. ) T he C our tal s o gave I ns truct i on S- 2, w hi ch s t at ed:

3 T h e C o u rt in stru c ts th e Ju ry th a t to c o n stitu te p o ss e ss io n a s a p p lied to th is c a se , itis n o t n e c e ss a ry th a t th e S tate p ro v e a c tu a l p h y s ic a l p o ss e ss io n ; itis s uf f i ci enti f the St at e es t abl i s hes thatthe s ubs t ance i nvol ved w as s ubj ectt o the d e fe n d a n t’s d o m in io n a n d c o n tro l, an d tha t he w a s a w a re o r re a so n a b ly sh o u ld h av e b ee n aw are o f i ts prese n ce an d ch ara cter. 4 Fi nal l y, J udge C l ark al s o gr ant ed G l i dden’ s pr opos ed I ns truct i on D
- 7, w hi ch s t at ed: T h e C o u rt in stru c ts th e ju ry th a t a re a so n a b le d o u b t m a y a rise fr o m th e w h o le of the evi dence , the confl i ctof the evi dence , the l ack of evi dence , orthe insu ffi cien cy o f th e ev iden ce bu t, ho w ev er i t arises, if i t arises, iti s yo u r sw o rn d u ty to fi n d th e d e fe n d a n t “ n o t g u ilty .” ¶1 4
. O n c e th e S tate rested it s ca se-in-c h ief, Ju d g e C lark g ran ted G li d d en ’s m o ti o n for a di r ect ed ver di cton the i s s ue of pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o s el l ordi s tr i but e, overthe vi gor ous

### Ols on adm itte d that s he di d no t know whether Jos eph Buc kner , who ha d bee n 5 

### convi ct ed in Har

ri son Count

y Circui t Court for

the sedrug s al es , wa s the s am e J oseph Buckne r who owne d thepic kup tr uck be ing drivenb y Gli dden on the day he wa s s toppe d bylaw en forcement officials. Befo re trial, the S tate hadmov ed to exclude e vidence o f Bu ckn er’s prio r convictio ns, 6 

### but the trial ju dg e hadden ied th e State’s mo tion
. Glid den ’s prio r convictionscons isted o f burglaryof a b uild ing for th eft (two separate 7 

### convi ctions ), poss es si on of Lys ergic Aci d Die thyl am ide(LSD) , and fe lony e sc ape . 8 obj ect i on of

the St at e, and the ca s e w entf orw ar d s ol el y on the i ssue of s i m pl e pos s es s i on. D ur i ng hi s cas e- i n- chi ef , G l i dden, overobj ect i on of the St at e, w as abl e t o getbef or e t he j ur y, vi a the t e s t i mony o f

D e pu ty Ci r c ui tCl e r k Pa ul a O l s on , tha ta man n a med J os e ph Buckner had ni ne pr i orconvi ct i ons forsal e of a cont r ol l ed subs t ance . O vert he obj ect i on of the St at e, th e trial ju d g e a llo w e d n in e c e rtified c o p ies o f th e se n ten c in g o rd e rs to b e re c e iv e d in to
e v id e n c e a s d e fe n d a n t’s c o llec tiv e ex h ib it n u m b e r o n e . T h u s, G lid d e n w a s a b le to a rg u e h is 5 theory t o the j ury thatthe 450 gr ams of m ar i huan a f

ound i n B uckner ’ s pi ckup truck that G l i dden cl ai m ed t o have borr ow ed bel onged t o a ni ne- t i m e convi ct ed drug deal er , J os eph B u ck n er. 6 ¶15. G l i dden w as pr oven t o be an ha bi tual of f enderunderM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 8 1 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ); an d u n d er M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 4 1 -29 -13 9 (c)(2)(D ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 9 ), 7 G l i dden w as f

aci ng the pos s i bi l i ty of

an ei ght
- years ent ence w i thoutpar ol e. I ns t ead, J udge C l ark, i n es s ence , appl i ed the pr opor t i onal i ty t es tas s anct i oned by thi s C our ti n Clow ers v. S ta te , 522 So. 2d 762, 765 ( M i s s . 1988), and se nt ence d G l i dden t o a t erm of f ouryear s i n the
cus t ody of

the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons w i thoutthe bene f i tof par ol e or pr obat i on.

### SeeMiss. C od e Ann. § 41 -29 -13 9(b )(1) (R ev. 2 00 9). 8 

### 9 ¶ 1 6
. Ju d g e C lar k fu lfill e d h is so lem n re sp o n sib ili ty to a ffo rd G lid d e n th e c o n stitu tio n a lly f a i rtr i a l t o wh i c h h e wa s e n t i t l e d
. Th e j u ry h a d b e f o r e i tGl i d d e n ’ s th e o ry th a tth e 4 5 0 g r a ms
o f m a rih u a n a w e re n o t h is, b u t B u c k n e r’s , so m e o n e w h o h a d m u lti p le c o n v ictio n s fo r th e sa le
o f d ru g s. A lso , d u e to Ju d g e C lar k ’s p a rtial g ra n t o f G lid d e n ’s m o tio n fo r a d ire c ted v e rd ict, G l i dden’ s expos ur e w as dr amat i cal l y r educe d f r om the pos s i bi l i ty of

a thi r ty- years ent ence 8
as an habi tual of

f ender , t o a poss i bl e m axi m um sent ence of ei ghtyear s , and yethe r ece i ved onl y a f our - years ent ence . ¶1 7 . A d d it ion all y , if

o n e “ rea d s b etw ee n the lines ” a s to w h at G li d d en a n d h is l aw y er w ere
s ayi ng be f

or e the j ury, one r eas onabl y coul d i nf erthatG l i dden w as i ns i nuat i ng thatpol i ce of f i cer s ei therhad pl ant ed the mar i huana i n the pi ckup truck, oratthe very l east , had
m ani pul at ed the l ocat i on of the mar i huana i n the pi ckup bef or e phot ogr aphi ng the bag of
m ar i huana i n t he pi ckup af t erG l i dden had e xi t ed hi s vehi cl e t o m eetD et ect i ve C om ps t on at the r earof

the pi ckup. O n di r ectexami nat i on , w hen des cr i bi ng the s cene w her e he w as
s t opped by the pol i ce, G l i dden s t at ed: A n d it w a s n ’t lik e th a t w h e n I w a s d ri v in g th e tru c k . I t’ s a v e ry li ttle tru c k . M y fe e t w o n ’t e v e n fit in th e re . I w o u ld b e ste p p in g all o v e r th a t. I do n ’t k n o w if i tcame outw hen I hi tthe br akes. I tm i ghthave c om e outthen, butI di d s ee o n e o f th e o ffic e rs o n th e p a ss e n g e r s id e w ith a b a g o f p o t, an d th e re w e re six m or e pol i ce c ar s ther e, and they w er e pas s i ng i tar ound. I tgotback i n the tru c k . T h a t’ s th e o n ly w a y . If I w o u ld h a v e sa w so m e th in g lik e th a t, I w o u ld h a v e n e v e r g o t in th e tru c k , p o in t b lan k . B u t itw a s n o t li k e th a t. D ur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent s , def ens e couns el s t at ed t o the j ury: H ow m any t i m e[ s ] have you be en dri ving dow n the s tr eetand s aw s om eone pul l ed overon the s i de and s aw one ca r ? H ow m any t i m es ? J us ton a tr af f i c? The r e i s u s ua l l y tw o, s omet i mes thr e e , s omet i mes mor e tha n tha t . O ne

### 10

u n ma r k e d c a r , a n d t h e y h a v e g o ta p o u n d o f ma r i j u a n a a n d y o u th i n k th e s e two of f i cer s ar e the onl y ones ther e. I t ’ s nota r abbi thol e. I t ’ s w hatw e don’ tknow
. W e don’ tknow w hatother of f i cer s w er e pr es ent . W e don’ tknow w hatotherof f i cer s w er e doi ng. H e s ays he t ook the phot ogr aph, butdi d he have the ca m er a on hi m ordi d he w al k back to th e p a tro l ca r to g e t it , an d w h a t h a p p e n e d d u rin g th a t p e rio d o f ti m e . T h is i s notas s i m pl e as the s t at e w oul d have you thi nk. ¶1 8. Ser geantG oodm an t es t i f i ed t hat , once the s t op of the p i c ku p t ruck had been
acc om pl i s hed, he and D et ect i ve C om ps t on had exi t ed thei rvehi cl e, and G l i dden had exi t ed the pi ckup f

r om the dri ver’ s s i de, m eet i ng C om ps t on atthe r earof the pi ckup. G oodm an cont i nued t o the pas s engers i de of the truck, w hi ch G l i dden had parked on the l ef t - hand s i de of the s tr eet . T her e w as no one el s e i n t he pi ckup. B oth the pas s enger - doorw i ndow and the dr i ver ’ s - s i de- doorw i ndow w er e dow n. Ser geantG oodm an had a c l earvi ew of the i nt er i or of the pi ckup by s i m pl y s t andi ng out s i de t he pas s engerdoorand l ooki ng i ns i de. Ser geant G oodm an i m m edi at el y not i ced a zi p- l ock bag cont ai ni ng w hathe bel i eved t o be m ar i huana on the dr i ver ’ s - s i de f

l oorboar d. G oodm an t es t i f i ed that“not even a n i nch of [ the bag] w as
u n d e rth e d r i v e r ’ s s e a t , ” me a n i n g th a tmo s to f th e b a g o f

ma r i h u a n a wa s i n p l a i n v i e w. T wo phot ogr aphs ent er ed i nt o evi dence cl ear l y d epi ctthe l ar ge bag of m ar i huana on the f l oorboar d of

the pi ckup, a nd Ser geantG oodm an t es t i f i ed the phot ogr aphs w er e t aken pr i or t o the bag of

m ar i huana be i ng m oved. ¶19. D et ect i ve C om ps t on, w ho w as acc ept ed w i thout obj ect i on as an expert i n the f i el d of
nar cot i cs i nves t i gat i on, al s o s aw t he bag of m ar i huana i n the pi ckup. C om ps t on actual l y t ook the phot og raphs ent er ed i nt o evi dence
. D ur i ng the r e- cr os s exami nat i on of C om ps t on by d e fe n s e c o u n s e l, C o m p s to n te s tif ie d th a t th e z ip -l o c k b a g w a s n o t f in g e rp ri n te d b e c a u s e “ [i]n

### 11

m y e x p e ri e n c e w e h a v e h a d v e ry p o o r r e s u lts re c e iv in g fin g e rp ri n ts o ff o f a te x tu re lik e th is .” C om ps t on c l ar i f

i ed thatthe t extur e t o w hi ch he w as r ef err i ng w as a pl as t i c bag, s uch as the zi p- l ock bag c ont ai ni ng the mar i huana. N otw i ths t andi ng thi s t es t i m ony conce rni ng t he di f f i cul ty i n l i f

t i ng i dent i f

i abl e f i ngerpr i nt s of

f pl as t i c, de f

ens e couns el s t at ed dur i ng cl os i ng argum ents : C oupl e otherthi ng s I thoughtcur i ous . W hy di dn’ tthey try and t ake f i ngerpr i nt s off

thi s . I t ’ s a hea vy pl as t i c bag. E verythi ng w e’ ve l earned about f o r e n s i c i s I j u s tl e f

tm y DN A a l l o v e rth a tth i n g . T h e y c a n d o wo n d e r s n o w. W hy i s i tt hey di dn’ tdo i t ? B eca us e the onl y pr i ntthey w er e goi ng t o f i nd on ther e w er e pol i ce of

f i cer s . I s n’ tthata pos s i bi l i ty? ¶20. T hi s C our tonce a gai n had the occ as i on t o addr es s cons truct i ve pos s es s i on i n Hudson
v. State, 30 So. 3d 1199, 1203- 04 ( M i s s . 2010)
. I n Hudson , w e sta ted : I n otherw or ds , “[ t ] he l aw s t at es thatactual pos s es s i on i s notneede d, that cons truct i ve pos s es s i on w i l l do. ” Sm ith v. S ta te , 83 9 S o. 2d 48 9, 49 7 (M i ss. 20 03 ). N evertheles s, the “aw areness” and “co nsci ou s i ntentt o p ossess ” el ement s appl y t o bot h actual and cons truct i ve pos s es s i on. T he onl y di f f er ence is th at, w ith ac tual p o sses sion , the d rug is actua ll y fou n d o n the d efe n d an t’ s per s on ( i
. e. , i n h i s hands , m outh, pocket s , et c. ) , w her eas , w i th cons truct i ve pos s es s i on, the drug i s s i m pl y f ound “nea r ” the def

endant ’ s pe r s on i n a pl ace o v e r w h ic h th e d e fe n d a n t ex e rc ise s d o m in io n o r c o n tro l. T h u s, “ [t] h e S tate ha[ s ] t o pr ove that[ the def endant ] w as aw ar e of

the coc ai ne and i nt ent i onal l y, b u t n o t n e c e ss a rily p hy sic a lly , pos s es s ed i t . ” I d. “[ T ] o t es tw hetherthe pr os ecut i on m etthi s s t andar d of pr oof i n i ndi vi dual cas es [ , ] eac h cas e mustbe vi ew ed i n l i ghtof

i t s i ndi vi dual f

act s and ci r cumst ance s [
. ] ” Huds on, 3 0 S o . 3 d at 12 0 3 -04 (cit ati o n s o m itted) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). ¶ 2 1
. A s a lre a d y m e n tio n e d , in d e lib e ra tin g o n its v e rd ict, th e ju ry h a d e v e ry rig h t to a p p ly
comm on s ens e, comm on exper i ence , and s ound hones tj udgm enti n cons i der i ng and
w e ig h in g th e tes tim o n y o f th e w itn e ss e s a n d th e e x h ib its re c e iv e d in to e v id e n c e . U n lik e th is C our t , the j ury had the opportuni ty, notonl y t o hearG l i dden’ s t es t i m ony, butal s o t o obs erve

### 12

G l i dden’ s dem eanor . In a ppr opr i at el y appl yi ng the j ury i ns truct i ons gi ven by the tr i al j udge t o the evi dence i n t oday’ s c as e, the j ury w as m or e than j us t i f i ed i n f i ndi ng G l i dden gui l ty of p o ss e ss io n o f m a rih u a n a . W e sta te a g a in , fo r th e sa k e o f e m p h a sis , tha t th e ju ry w a s p ro p e rly in s tru c te d b y th e tr ia l ju d g e , in tera lia , thatthe j ury’ s “exc l us i ve pr ovi nce” w as t o deci de the
w e ig h t a n d c red ibil ity to b e a ssign ed to the test im o n y o f ea ch w itn ess. T h e juro rs w ere i nf or m ed thatthey w er e “r equi r ed and e xpect ed” t o us e thei r“good comm on s ens e and s ound hones tj udgm ent ” i n w ei ghing the t es t i m ony of the w i tnes s es w ho t es t i f i ed i n the ca s e. Fi nal l y, and mosti m por t ant l y, the j ury w as i nform ed t hati tw as “perm i t t ed t o dr aw s uch
r eas onabl e i nf

er ence s f r om the evi dence as s eem j us t i f i ed i n l ightof

yourow n expe r i ence .” ( E m phas i s added. ) T he j ury had every ri ghtt o consi deral l the evi dence and conc l ude that G l i dden w as nott el l i ng the truth w hen he t es t i f i ed he ha d no i dea the mar i huana w as i n t he truck he had been dri ving forthirty m i nu t es. ¶22. I n D ilw o rth v . S ta te , 9 0 9 S o . 2 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 6 ( M is s . 2 0 0 5 ), th is C o u rt o n c e a g a in
r ei t er at ed the f

ami l i art es tf

ora ppel l at e r evi ew of

a c r i m i nal c onvi ct i on w hen as s ai l ed on a
c laim o f in su ffic ien t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt th e v e rd ict: Shoul d the f

act s and i nf

er ence s cons i der ed i n a cha l l enge t o the s uf f i ci ency of the ev i den ce ‘poi nt i n favor of the d efe n d an t on any el em ent of the o ff ense w i th s uf f i ci entf or ce thatr eas onabl e [

j ur or s ] coul d nothave f ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe def endantw as gui l ty, ’ the pr operr emedy i s f orthe a p p e lla te c o u rt to re v e rs e a n d re n d e r [ , i.e . re v e rs e a n d d is c h a rg e ]. E dw ar ds v. S ta te , 469 So. 2d 68, 70 ( M i s s . 1985) ( ci t i ng Ma y v. S ta te , 460 So. 2d 778, 781 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ); see als o D y c u s v . S ta te , 8 7 5 S o . 2 d 1 4 0 , 1 6 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). H ow ever , i f

a r evi ew of

the evi dence r evea l s thatiti s of s uch qual i ty and w ei ghtthat , ‘ havi ng i n m i nd the beyond a r eas onabl e doubtbur den of pr oof s t andar d, r eas onabl e f

ai r - m i nded [

j ur or s ] i n the exe r ci s e of i m part i al j udgm ent m i ghtr eac h di f

f er entconcl us i ons on every el em ent of the of f ens e, ’ the e v id e n c e w ill b e d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n su ffic ien t.

### 13

D ilw o rth , 909 So. 2d at736 ( quot i ng B u sh v. S ta te , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 )). See al s o Hudson , 30 So. 3d at1203. ¶23. T hi s w as a cl as s i c j ury cas e – G l i dden’ s t es t i m ony ver s us t he St at e’ s t es t i m ony and
su p p o rt ing ev iden ce , i. e., the p h o tog rap h s o f th e b ag o f m arihu an a in th e loca ti o n w h ere pol i ce of f i cer s t es t i f

i ed the mar i huana w as found att he t i m e t hey st opped t he truck G l i dden
w as dr i vi ng. U nf

or tunat el y f

orG l i dden, the j ury r es ol ved thes e i s s ues adver s el y t o hi m . B ut the ju ry v erd ictw as su p p o rt ed b y leg all y su ffi cien t ev iden ce su ch that, b ase d o n o u r st an d ard
o f re v iew , itis b e y o n d th e p o w e r a n d a u th o rity o f th is C o u rt to d istu rb o n a p p e a l. CO NC L US I ON ¶24. B as ed on t oday’ s di s cus s i on, t he j udgm entof the C our tof

A ppeal s , w hi ch af

f i r m ed the H arr i s on C ount y C i r cui tC our t ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on f

orpos s es si on of

a contr ol l ed
s ubs t ance and s ent ence of f ouryear s as a n ha bi tual of f enderi n the cus t ody of

the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof

C orr ect i ons , i s af

f i r m ed. ¶25. CONVI CT I ON OF P OS S ES S I ON OF A CONT ROLL ED S UB S TA NCE AND SENTE NC E O F FO UR ( 4 ) YE AR S I N T H E C USTO D Y O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI DE P ART M EN T OF CORRE CT I ONS , AS A HABI TU AL OF F EN DE R, W I THOUT T H E E L I G I B I L I T Y F O R P A R O L E O R P R O B A T I O N , A F F I R M E D . R A N D O L P H , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , J J ., C O N C U R . K I T C H E N S , J ., D I S S E N T S W IT H S E P A R A T E W R IT T E N O P IN IO N J O IN E D B Y W A L L E R , C .J ., DI CK I NS ON , P . J . , AN D C HA ND L E R, J . KI NG , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶2 6. A s a mat t e rof

l a w , pr ox i mi ty a l on e i s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s ho w co ns truc t i ve po s s e s s i on,
w ith o u t a d d itio n a l in c ri m in a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s . C u rr y v. S ta te , 2 49 S o. 2 d 41 4, 4 16 (M i ss.

### 14

1 9 7 1 ). B e c a u s e th e p lu ra lity ’s c o n c lu s io n is in c o n s is te n t w ith th is w e ll- s e ttle d p ri n c ip le , I
re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶27. T her e i s no di s put e that , becaus e G l i dden di d notphys i cal l y pos s es s the mar i huana, he w as tr i ed and c onvi ct ed undera theory of cons truct i ve posse s s i on. W her e, as her e, t he
c o n tra b a n d is fo u n d in a p lac e n o t o w n e d b y th e a c c u se d , p h y sic a l p ro x im ity a lo n e is in s u ff ic ie n t, a s a m a tte r o f la w , to su s ta in a fi n d in g o f c o n s tru c tiv e p o s s e s s io n . C unn ingham
v. S ta te , 583 So. 2d 960, 962 ( M i s s . 1991)
. “Pr oxi m i ty i s us ual l y a n e s s ent i al el ement , but by i t s el f i s notadequa t e i n the abs ence of otheri ncr i m i nat i ng ci r cumst ance s . ” C u rry , 249 So. 2d at416. T he St at e mustp utf or th s uf f i ci entevi dence t o pr ove thatthe def endant
e x e rc is e d d o m in io n a n d c o n tr o l o v e r t h e c o n tr a b a n d
. J a c kso n v . S ta te , 689 So. 2d 760, 767 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). If th e S tate c a n n o t p ro v id e e v id e n c e , in a d d itio n to p ro x im ity , th a t c o n n e c ts th e d e fe n d a n t to th e c o n tra b a n d , the a c c u se d is e n tit led to a c q u itt a l. C unn ingham , 5 8 3 S o . 2 d at 96 2 (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶28. T he C our tof

A ppeal s r ecog nized t hat t he m ere pr es ence of the mar i huana i n the vehi cl e w as nots uf

f i ci entt o s us t ai n G l i dden’ s c onvi ct i on, butf ound thatthe r equi r ementf or
a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e w a s sa tis fi e d b y th e te s tim o n y p re s e n te d a t t ri a l. G lidden , 2 0 1 0 WL 3638768, at*2. I n r eac hi ng i t s deci s i on, the C our tof A ppeal s r eas oned: G l i dden had be en dr i vi ng t he truck f orappr oxi m at el y thi r ty m i nu t es w i th a l ar ge bag of

m ar i j uana di r ect l y underhi s fe et . A ccor di ng t o t he t es t i m ony of both D et ect i ve C om ps t on and Ser geantG oodm an, the cl earpl as t i c bag w as on the dr i ver’ s s i de f

l oorboar d and w as i m m edi at el y vi s i bl e thr ough the truck w i ndow
. G l i dden admi t t ed thatthe truck w as s m al l a nd thata bag thatl ar ge w o u ld h a v e b e e n e a sily s e e n b y h im . F ro m th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted , rea so n a b le juro rs co u ld h av e c o n clud ed that G li d d en w as g u il ty o f po sses sion o f a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e .

### 15

I d. In otherw or ds , t he appea l s cour tsurm i s ed t hatther e w as s uf f i ci entevi dence thatG l i dden
m us thave se en t he bag of m ar i huana on the f

l oorboar d des pi t e hi s r epea t ed i ns i s t ence t hat he had nots een the drug w hi l e he w as dr i vi ng the truck, and thati tm ay have come f r om
u n d e r t h e s e a t w h e n h e a p p lie d th e b ra k e s . ¶2 9. T hi s , how ever , cann ot provi de suff i ci ent evi den ce o f “ ot her i ncr i m i nat i ng ci r cumst ance s . ” C u rry , 2 4 9 S o . 2 d at 41 6
. E v e n if w e c o u ld as ce rt ain fro m the re co rd pr eci s el y w her e the drug w as l ocat ed w hi l e G l i dden w as d ri ving the truck, orw hetherhe sh o u ld h av e n o ti ce d the p last ic ba g , th e re sti ll w o u ld b e a lack o f ev iden ce to su p p o rt G l i dden’ s convi ct i on. A s thi s C our ts t at ed i n Fe rr e ll v. S ta te , 649 So
. 2d 8 3 1 , 8 3 5 (M is s. 1 9 9 5 ), “ th e S tate m u st s h o w a d d iti o n a l circ u m sta n c e s w h ich a re a c tu a lly in c rim in a tin g in
o rd e r to e sta b lish c o n stru c tiv e p o ss e ss io n .” “ T h e re m u st b e su ffic ien t fa c ts to w a rr a n t a f i ndi ng thatthe def

endantw as a w ar e of

the pr es ence a nd c har act erof the part i cul ars ubs t ance and w as i nt ent i onal l y and cons ci ous l y i n pos s es s i on of i t . ” C u rry , 249 So. 2d at416. ¶30. T he pl ur al i ty r eas ons that “[ t ] he j ury had every r i ght t o cons i der al l the evi dence and concl ude thatG l i dden w as nott el l i ng the truth w hen he t es t i f i ed he ha d no i dea the
m ari hu ana w as i n the truck he had been dri ving forthirty m i nu t es. ” P l ur. O p. at¶ 21
. T hu s, the opi ni on as cr i bes s i gni f i canc e t o w hetherG l i dden w as abl e to s ee the mar i huana i n t he borr ow ed vehi cl e and c oncl udes thathe musthave not i ced i t . B utw hati f he di d? Iti s not i l l egal t o s ee c on tr a ba nd , ore ve n t o b e i n c l os e pr ox i mi ty t o i t . To ob s e r ve a n i l l egal
comm odi t y i s no tto pos s es s i t , i n the abs ence of evi dence thatthe obs erverdi d m or e than
m er el y l ook atthe cont raband ; t her e mustbe s om e art i cul abl e i ndi ci a of ow ner s hi p and/ or contr ol
. H er e ther e i s no such evi dence , s ave a nd exce ptthe pl ur al i ty’ s s us pi ci on, w hi ch

### 16

appar ent l y i s born of

i t s “com m on s ens e” a nal ys i s of nonexi s t entpr oof

thatG l i dden
cr i m i nal l y pos s es s ed the m ar i huana i n B uckner ’ s pi ckup. I tsi m pl y i s notagai ns tt he l aw f or one per s on t o l ook atan i l l egal i t em t hati s i n anotherper s on’ s truck; and eve n i f he l i es about
w hetherhe saw i t , his fal sehoo d p rovi des no evidence o f cr i m i nal possess i on . I n sum , i tj ust does notm att erw hetherG l i dden w as aw ar e of t he m ari huana’ s pr es ence bef or e i tw as d is c o v e re d b y th e a rr e s tin g o ff ic e rs . ¶31. I n Fe rr e ll , the def endant w as pul l ed over w hi l e oper at i ng a veh i cl e that he di d not
o w n , b u t o f w h ic h h e h a d b e e n in p o s s e s s io n fo r f if te e n h o u rs . I

d . Ferr el l w as convi ct ed undert he t heory of cons truct i ve poss es s i on af t ercocai ne w as found i n a mat chbox l ocat ed
n e x t to t h e d ri v e r’ s s e a t. I d. O n appea l , thi s C our tr ever s ed Ferr el l ’ s convi ct i on and
s e n t e n c e , h o l d i n g th a t“ [ t ] h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s i n th i s c a s e i n n o wa y a p p e a ri n c r i mi n a t i n g . No drug par aphernal i a w as f ound i n the ca r , Ferr el l w as noton drugs a tthe t i m e he w as arr es t ed, and hi s f i ngerpr i nt s w er e notf

ound on the mat chbox. ” I d. Furthe r , “ Fe rr e l l ’ s po s s e s s i on of the ca rf ora mer e f

i f t een hour s does notqual i f y as an i ncr i m i nat i ng ci r cumst ance . ” I d. ¶32. M or e r ece nt l y, i n B li ssett v . S ta te , 7 5 4 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ), this C o u rt uphel d a f

i ndi ng of cons truct i ve pos s es s i on w her e the evi dence , i n addi t i on t o pr oxi m i ty,
s tr ongl y s uppor t ed an i nf er ence thatthe ac cus ed w as both aw ar e of the pr es ence of the
m ar i huana i n t he vehi cl e and i nt ent i onal l y i n pos s es s i on of i t . I n B lisse tt , the def

endantw as convi ct ed of

pos s es s i on a f

t era l ar ge amount of

mar i huana w as f

ound i n the r ent al c arhe w as d ri v in g . I

d. at1243. O n appeal , t he C our thel d thatthe f i ndi ng of cons truct i ve pos s es s i on
w as j us t i f

i ed, s t at i ng that“the arr es t i ng of f i cer. . . t es t i f

i ed t o s m el l i ng a s tr ong,
o v e rp o w e rin g o d o r o f u n b u rn e d m a riju a n a a s h e a p p ro a c h e d th e v e h icle a n d th a t air

### 17

f r es hener s w er e s catt er ed thr oughoutthe vehi cl e. ” I d. at1 24 4. T he C our tal s o f ound t hat “B l i s s ett ’ s nervous demeanoratthe t i m e of the s t op w as i ncons i s t entw i th a l ack of know l edge of

m ar i j uana i n t he ca r . ” I

d. ¶3 3. T he ki nds of

i nc r i mi na t i ng c i r c ums t a nc e s tha tw a rr a nt e d a f i nd i ng of cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on i n B lisse tt

a re a b s e n t in th e c a s e a t h a n d
. I d. at1243. U nl i ke B lisse tt , ther e w as
n o thing , su ch as a n o d o r, to alert G li d d en to the p rese n ce o f the m arihu an a in th e truc k
. In thi s cas e, unl i ke B lisse tt , itis co m p let ely p laus ible that G li d d en h ad d ri v en the tru c k fo r a
s hor tt i m e w i thoutany i ndi cat i on t hatt he drug w as i n the vehi cl e. A l s o, unl i ke B lisse tt , there
w as no t es t i m ony t hatG l i dden had a ct ed i n any w ay thatw as i ncons i s t entw i th hi s as s ert i on th a t h e w a s u n a w a re th e m a ri h u a n a w a s in th e v e h ic le
. I d. A t trial, G lid d e n c o n sis ten tly
m ai nt ai ned t hat he nevers aw the zi pl ock bag. I n f act , he i ns i s t ed that , had i tbeen i n the pos i t i on i n w hi ch the of f i cer s r eca l l ed s eei ng i tin the s t opped vehi cl e, he coul d nothave d ri v e n th e tru c k
. ¶34. T he f

act s of thi s c as e ar e ana l ogous t o thos e i n Fe rr e ll , 6 4 9 S o . 2 d a t 8 3 5 , a s th e o n ly i ncri m i nat i ng evi dence es t abl i s hed attr i al w as thatG l i dden w as i n the vi ci ni ty of t he
m ar i huana. H er e, as i n Fe rr e ll , the St at e pr es ent ed no i ndepende nti ncr i m i nat i ng evi dence
. N o drug par aphernal i a w as f ound i n the pi ckup oron G l i dden’ s per s on, and ther e w as no i ndi cat i on f

r om hi s behavi orthathe w as on drugs . T he truck bel onged t o a cus t om erof G l i dden, and he ha d pos s es s i on of i tf oraboutthi r ty m i nut es w hi l e he w as m aki ng an
em erg en cy serv ice c all that h e h ad n o t exp ec ted to o cc u r. ¶3 5 . A s a m a tter of l aw , co n stru cti v e p o sses sio n is n o t es tab lish e d w h e re “ th e o n ly evi dence connec t i ng the def endantt o the contr ol l ed s ubs t ance w as hi s pr es ence i n the ca r

### 18

w her e the s ubs t ance w as f ound. ” D ix o n v. S ta te , 953 So. 2d 1108, 1115 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng J o n e s v . S ta te , 693 So. 2d 375, 377 ( M i s s . 1997) )
. Shoul d the pl ur al i ty’ s contr ary hol di ng att ai n for ce- of

- l aw s t atus i n f

utur e ca s es , borr ow i ng a vehi cl e w i l l become a very r i s ky
e n terp rise in th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i. ¶36. W hi l e the pl ur al i ty opi ni on r ecogni zes that G l i dden w as convi ct ed under a theory of
cons truct i ve pos s es s i on, i ts t ops s hor tof anal yzi ng ourw el l
- es t abl i s hed l aw on thati s s ue and fail s to p o int t o a d d it ion al inc ri m inating e v iden ce that m igh t sup p o rta c o n v ict ion
. H o w ev er, the pl ur al i ty quot es I ns truct i on S- 2, w hi ch i nf or m ed the j ury thatcons truct i ve pos s es s i on coul d be es t abl i s hed i f

t he def endant“s houl d have be en aw ar e” of the drug’ s pr es ence and char act er . T hi s s ugges t s t hatw e ar e cr af t i ng a new l egal s t andar d, beca us e, notw i ths t andi ng th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s l a c k o f

o b j e c t i o n , I n s tru c t i o n S
- 2 i s n o ta c o rr e c ts t a t e me n to f a p p l i c a b l e l a w. See M i s s . M odel J ury I ns truct i ons : C r i m i nal § 3: 21 ( 2010) (“A p ers on has cons truct i ve pos s es s i on w hen he ors he l acks actual poss es s i on of the thi ng orobj ectbutknow i ngl y has both the pow erand the i nt ent i on, ata given t i m e, t o exer ci s e contr ol ordom i ni on overt he th in g o r o b

jec t, eith e r d ire c tly o r th ro u g h a n o th e r p e rso n .”). W h a t a d e fe n d a n t s hould have know n m a y b e su ffic ien t k n o w led g e fo r c iv il l iab ili ty ; b u t th is C o u rt h a s n e v e r h e ld th a t itis
s u ff ic ie n t to p ro v e a d e fe n d a n t g u ilty o f d ru g p o s s e s s io n . See e
. g. , H y u n da i v. Ap

p lew h ite , 53 S o. 3d 74 9, 75 9 (M i ss. 20 11 ) ( “T o sup po rta defect i ve d esi gn cl ai m , the p l ai nti ff m ust p ro v e th a t . . . ‘[t ]he m a n u fa c tu re r o r s e ller k n e w , o r in lig h t o f re a so n a b ly a v a ilab le know l edge or i n t he exer ci s e of r eas onabl e ca r e s h o u ld h a v e kn o wn , aboutthe dange rt hat caused the d am age for w hich r ecov ery i s sough t. . . . ’” ( em ph asi s adde d ) (q u o ti ng M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1-6 3 (f) (i ) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 )).

### 19

¶ 3 7 . In c a se s w h e re c o n tra b a n d is fo u n d o n p re m ise s n o t o w n e d b y th e d e fe n d a n t , th e S tate
c a n n o t m e e t its b u rd e n o f p ro o f b y re ly in g o n p ro x im ity a lo n e . D i xon , 953 So. 2d at 11 1. T h e m e re p re s e n c e o f t h e m a rih u a n a in th e tru c k , a b s e n t “ o th e r i n c ri m in a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s ,” i s i ns uf f i ci entt o s us t ai n G l i dden’ s convi ct i on. B eca us e t her e i s no addi t i onal evi dence i n t he
re c o rd to su p p o rt a fin d in g o f c o n stru c tiv e p o ss e ss io n , a n d th e p lu ra lity c ites n o n e , w e sh o u ld
r ever s e both the C our tof A ppeal s and the C i r cui tC our tof the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H a rr is o n C o u n ty a n d re n d e r j u d g m e n t in fa v o r o f G lid d e n . W A L L E R , C . J. , D IC K IN S O N , P . J. , A N D C H A N D L E R , J. , JO IN T H IS OP I NI ON.